You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Monday, September 8th 2003, 9:50pm

The Russian cruiser problem

That is, there aren't many of them.

The Russian Federation came out of the great War with a somewhat unbalanced fleet. There's 12 battleships/battlecruisers, with four more building, but for cruisers there's the Rurik, 3 armored cruisers of the Admiral Makarov class (1905), 6 protected cruisers of the Palladia and Bogatyr classes (1897 & 1899), 8 light cruisers of the Admiral Lazarev class (1914), and 8 Cruiser Flotilla Leaders of the Besstrashniy class (1917). Rurik is being scrapped, since she mounts 10" guns, and many of the remainder are rather ancient. The Sverdlovsk class (1918) will help fill the Heavy Cruiser void, and four of the following will be laid down in 1922 to start dealing with the Light Cruiser problem:

General Admiral Apraxin class light cruisers, laid down 1922

Length, 160.0 m x Beam, 16.0 m x Depth, 6.5 m
8724 tonnes normal displacement (7694 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 9 x 15.0-cm (3 x 3; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 10 x 10.0-cm
AA battery: 16 x 3.7-cm
Light battery: 4 x 1.3-cm

Weight of broadside: 571 kg

8 TT, 53.0 cm in two quad mounts

Main belt, 5.0 cm; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 2.5 cm
Conning tower, 5.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 10.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm shields
AA, 2.5 cm shields

Aircraft - 2 Seaplanes, 1 Catapult

Maximum speed for 65771 shaft kw = 32.50 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 8000 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 451-587


Estimated cost, $8.837 million (£2.209 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 127 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 157 tonnes = 2 pct
Armor, total ..................... 981 tonnes = 11 pct

Belt 304 tonnes = 3 pct
Deck 324 tonnes = 4 pct
C.T. 18 tonnes = 0 pct
Armament 336 tonnes = 4 pct

Machinery ........................ 2990 tonnes = 34 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 3237 tonnes = 37 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1309 tonnes = 15 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tonnes = 1 pct
-----
8724 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 0.7 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 7414 tonnes
Standard displacement: 7694 tonnes
Normal service: 8724 tonnes
Full load: 9513 tonnes

Loading submergence 1665 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.09

Shellfire needed to sink: 2942 kg = 62.9 x 15.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.0
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.61

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.20

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.52
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.80
'Natural speed' for length = 22.9 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 61 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 126 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 132 percent


Displacement factor: 106 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.94
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 483 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.79
(for 6.52 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +2.03 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

524.80 x 52.48 x 21.32; 21.39 -- Dimensions
0.52 -- Block coefficient
1922 -- Year laid down
32.50 / 8000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
9 x 5.91; 3; 1 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
10 x 3.94; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
16 x 1.46 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
4 x 0.51 -- Fourth (light) battery
8 / 0 / 20.87 -- TT / submerged / size
++++++++++
1.97 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 127 -- Belt armor; relative extent
0.98 / 1.97 -- Deck / CT
3.94 / 0.98 / 0.98 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


2

Monday, September 8th 2003, 11:37pm

not bad

Your metric stats kinda through me off but what I can see is a nice Nurnberg type cruiser with a decent armament and a respectable speed. How many does Russia plan on building?

3

Tuesday, September 9th 2003, 12:36am

Four at a time.

I've got four separate fleets to give cruisers to, so expect to see follow-ons.

4

Tuesday, September 9th 2003, 6:19pm

Follow-ons?
You plan to go for different designs each time or improved designs?

Walter

5

Tuesday, September 9th 2003, 8:49pm

I was kinda wondering whether the design would be adjusted to account for where the ship will be based. In the north, you might keep the hull strength and seakeeping high, while in the Black Sea you might lower these a bit and add a little more armor, for instance.

6

Tuesday, September 9th 2003, 9:54pm

Basing of cruisers

The Rock Doctor:

Quoted

I was kinda wondering whether the design would be adjusted to account for where the ship will be based.


The idea has its attractions, but as Admiral Rodzhestvensky discovered on his way to Tsushima, a Russian fleet can be called upon to sail a wide variety of seas.

And:

Rooijen10:

Quoted

You plan to go for different designs each time or improved designs?


I haven't decided. I've examined a number of options for both choices. I tend to think that 9x15cm is sufficient gun lethality, but AA suite, torpedos, armor, speed, and range will vary in different proportions, with the stats on the Admiral Apraxin being the minimums for CLs that accompany the battle line. So AA suites, torpedos, and range will tend to grow over time, some will have more speed, some more armor.

Flotilla Leaders, convoy escorts, or AA cruisers will have tonnage and stats more suited to their missions.